Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 69

I started a discussion about clarification of some of the wording in WP:SPS in light of FF7 Famicon discussion at WT:Verifiability#Clarification on SPS statement. Feel free to chime in.じんない 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I came across an article for a game called Mental Omega recently. Apparently, it's an unofficial mod for an expansion pak of a spin-off title in the Command and Conquer series. It makes no attempt to assert its notability except to note that it is an unofficial part of the Command and Conquer series and that it recieved an award from a website that specializes in mod news. Concerns about its notability have been brought up on the article's talk page, and there exists a notability tag on the article, but I wanted to find out once and for all if this thing has any hope of surviving an AfD before I do any work on it. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there significant coverage in reliable third party sources? The article has a few references, but they seem to be mostly forums—not good enough. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The only notable aspect of it is perhaps the award nomination, which isn't enough. Notability requires multiple reliable sources. The other sites look like fansites and there is one forum post that doesn't appear to be from an expert.じんない 21:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll see if I can get it nominated for AfD. Who knows, it may inspire someone to find a reason why it's notable. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I'm instead going to start a merger discussion at Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge. If anyone smarter than me wants to contribute, please do. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it did receive an award, it can be noted on the main article, but really that's all that should be there. Thus a redirect with noting that info is probably better.じんない 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Half-Life 2: Episode Three (currently a stub) be merged into the Half-Life (series) article, any input would be appreciated. Cheers! Rehevkor ✉ 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect. So little info not worth a merge.じんない 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up ... I change a fair number of speedy deletions (maybe 5% to 10%) into {{prod-nn}}, and notify the relevant wikiproject by adding your project tag to the talk page. You guys probably know already that that will make the page show up here. I always give my rationale on the article talk page, and I'd appreciate your feedback on whether there was anything you wanted me to handle differently about your articles. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned this up a bit, but it still lacks assertion of notability and any references. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#PlayStation_palmar_hidradenitis, and, if available, would appreciate this community's feedback. Thanks in advance! ---kilbad (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone did cut and paste moves of Sega division pages and now their histories are broken, could someone fix them?

• Sega AM-1 was at Sega WOW
• Sega AM-2 was at Sega-AM2
• Sega AM-3 was at Sega-AM3
• Sega Sports Japan was at Smilebit

That's all that I noticed. --Mika1h (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

•   Doing... — TKD::{talk} 16:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
•   Done. — TKD::{talk} 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there existing guidance for how to measure whether video games are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? If not, do members of the WikiProject think it might be worthwhile creating such guidelines? My query comes as more and more games are being created for the iPhone and suchlike, with the authors or fans creating articles on Wikipedia. Some of these games are extremely minor and shouldn't be included, but is there a particular line we can draw? Cheers. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of a specific video game guideline, but they certainly must fulfill the basic notability guideline: the game must receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now we use WP:GNG or in some cases WP:WEB. For those interested I think atm. The only kind of content we are discussing that could indeed be notability worthy is on remakes/ports as their own separate articles (see above).じんない 03:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A whole bunch of text-interface turn-based Star Trek tactical starship games from the 1970's have turned up for deletion at WP:PROD (see WP:PRODSUM for 6 May) with a flimsy excuse for a rationale ("Any evidence of notability?" - a question, not an actual rationale) because if the nominator ever actually read the article, the question would be resolved by the claims made in the article. (which is not the same as actually being true, but nevertheless, it's there). If you wish to keep the articles, just delete the PROD template. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There used to be an excellent article about early text-based spaced sims (including several Star Trek ones). I lost the link, and it might not be considered reliable since it was written by a fan. SharkD (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic pretty much says it all, I'm after a source that covers the design specifications of the cartridge in terms of hardware and programming. Official would probably be best, but something third party yet reliable would be helpful as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember all that was in this PC World article about the Famicom in general, but I remember it was very informative. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Actually one of the articles on the FF7 famicom site talks about Famicom hardware as well.じんない 03:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for an unrelated link at this point, Guyinblack25's did the number. Thanks :D--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could someone from this WikiProject look at this FLC? It desperately needs reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the FLC failed due to a lack of reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a section on Sports game called Notable sports games by type of sport. Firstly, it's an eye-sore. Secondly, it's superfluous. Thirdly, it's unmaintainable. I direct you all to Category:Sports video games, its contents, and all their sub-contents. We have a helluva lot of Sports video games categorised there and I don't think anyone would ever suggest putting them all into the Sports game article.

So why the current list? It seems to imply specific notability above other games, but that's entirely subjective and opinionated. Also, we don't have it for other genres. And with those categories in place, it serves no use as navigation. Hence, I want to remove it. But, seeing as it makes up a good quarter of that article, I didn't want to do so without discussing it with the VG community. Does anyone have any objection to an all-out removal of this? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it - a category would be sufficient. An article shouldn't contain embedded lists like that.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removal. Anytime you see the word "notable" in an article body, especially with flat lists of things, it's usually a way of trying to protect the content from scrutiny by associating it with a wiki buzzword. It's a form of WP:PEACOCK. If the games were so notable as to be important to the genre, then there should be prose written about their influence (history of the genre, etc.) instead of just calling them notable and sticking them on a list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've begun work on a very important project for WP:VG. I've grabbed links to all of the AFDs over the past year, and I've begun sorting them into categories based on the types of content. If you've seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, then you know that analyzing actual AFD data can let us make valuable conclusions about what's appropriate or inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Here is the AFD data that I'm looking at: User:Randomran/VGAFD. As you can see, I've sorted the first two three months already.

The reason why this data important is because it will help provide an objective basis to discuss our guidelines on video game content. According to WP:POLICY, the major source of our policies is "Documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them." I've organized data on VG AFDs from just two three months, and already some trends are becoming obvious. This will help us guarantee that articles that deserve to be kept are kept, and articles that deserve to be deleted will be deleted, and maybe even give us some guidance on everything in between.

In the long run, I'd like to put all the data into a magnificent table, with sortable columns. (By date, by name, by outcome, and by type of content.) But in the short run, I have to go through the pain-staking process of pulling apart the AFDs on different kinds of articles. Most articles are on actual games, but many are on companies, people, characters, mods, websites, and so on. I've been doing it one month at a time.

Would anyone care to adopt a month or two worth of AFD data, and help sort them into subsections/categories? Randomran (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe next week. I have finals right the moment.じんない 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Next week would be fine. I appreciate the help! Randomran (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am interested but unavailable, for the same reason as Jinnai. I'll look into it when I don't have finals staring at me. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an art student and don't have finals, but I'm busy trying not to be homeless and I still have to do that GA review anyhow :P But I'll see what I can do. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take August 08. Can't guarantee when it'll get done soon though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Guyinblack, thanks for adopting August 08! And to the others, let me know when you guys might become available. Any help is appreciated. Randomran (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm sorry, but I'm unable to devote time to this project at the moment. Way too much stuff going on in my personal and work life right now. Thanks for the invite, tho - good luck! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I added March 08. My suggestion is just to start a scratch page in your userspace and copy the format from random's list. Use the actual AfD log, not the deletion sorting list. It should take about 1-2 hours to do a whole month. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I did december. May or may not be able to do more. What comes next after those are finished?じんない 02:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Finished another. Looks like 1 left, although Randomran or someone else might have to go through and do a final cleanup as we each had slightly different classification schemes.じんない 04:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to do some work on a list and was checking the current featured list and noticed an inconsistency. On List of Sega 32X games the EU/PAL region is listed as EU where as List of N64 games lists PAL instead. The N64 even says "EUR" in the opening paragraph. I simply figured it should be consistent across articles.

Personally, I would go with EUR as neither use NTSC instead of NA or PAL for Japan. Crimsonfox (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't Austrilia and New Zealand fall under PAL? If so, wouldn't there have to be some disambiguation among games that are released separately in Europe and those countries? ~ Hibana 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, PAL implicitly includes Aus/NZ. If it doesn't apply to those, then EUR is the way to go. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, even more of a reason to go EU instead. Just wanted to check before making a change. Crimsonfox (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. There's a discussion taking place about whether the just-announced Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver should have an article or just a section on the Pokémon Gold and Silver article. It should be noted that the article is currently merged, so it's actually more of a "split" discussion. Just letting you guys know in case anyone wants to participate. Cheers. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 06:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This image was tagged as being in the public domain, which I don't think it is. Am I missing something that I don't know about? MuZemike 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, same user also claims that he owns the copyright to this image: File:Zarzon Arcade screen shot.jpg. Probably miss-tagged. Salavat (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the tags right quick should solve the issue.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Along with these other images by the uploader: File:Zarzon Arcade Flyer.jpg, File:Galaxy Wars 1979 Arcade Flyer.jpg. Salavat (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all of the above. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

R3match is a highly used website for clan matches and singles matches for the Xbox and PS3. Is the website notable enough to have it's own article?--(NGG) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Got sources? Nifboy (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there,

I was looking through D&D articles lately and I noticed that of all the articles with a template indicating that we are lacking any sources, there are several video game related articles. Anyone care to dig up a source or two and improve any of these articles?  :) Thanks!

• Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor
• Dungeons & Dragons: Tower of Doom
• Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Pool of Radiance
• Dungeon (video game)
• Fantasy Empires
• Spelljammer: Pirates of Realmspace
• Multi User Dungeons and Dragons (MUDD)
• Electron toolset
• NWScript
• DragonStrike (video game)
• Dark Sun Online: The Age of Heroes
• Aurora Engine

There are plenty of other cleanup issues, but lacking sources is a serious one, so I figured I'd bring that up first.  :) BOZ (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to anyone who helped with any changes on these articles. Except for DragonStrike, they are all still lacking any sources, so if you are able to find any that would be a great help, or any other little fixes you can perform would also be great. :) BOZ (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I added one to Aurora Engine. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there've been discussions on this before, so if someone knows about them and can either point me to them or summarize them for me, that'd be awesome. In Talk:Mega Drive, there's a discussion currently going on about whether the Mega Drive/Genesis is properly classified as a "16-bit" console, or if "16/32-bit" is a more proper designation because the CPU is 32-bit capable. I've already said my piece there, that "16-bit" not only is appropriate because of the architecture of the rest of the machine, but also because that's how it's marketed and how every reliable source we have on the topic refers to the machine. User:Theaveng seems to believe that a console's "bitness" is always determined by the capabilities of the CPU, though, and he and I disagree on some of the finer points of the Mega Drive's CPU's capabilities and uses.

In general, though, I'd like to ask what the consensus is on what defines the "bitness" of a console. Is there an actual definition for it? Is it based on technical specs, marketing, some combination of both? Just curious, so I'll have a better idea of how to handle these kinds of discussions if/when they come up again. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lowest common denominator of the hardware. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, back in the day I always though the "16-bit" referred to the graphics capabilities rather than the CPU. In retrospect, it was probably 90% marketing: "16 is twice as much as 8! 32 is twice as much as 16!" Anomie⚔ 02:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not picking up on a strong consensus on this, tho. There are a number of arguments on whether it's based on the architecture (memory bus, coprocessors, etc.), the CPU capabilities alone, or marketing, and IMO they're all valid. Most reliable sources are, in this case, going to be concerned with the system's marketing, since the Mega Drive clearly says "16-bit" right on it. But this falls in that kinda grey area between correctly representing something and going by what all the sources say, and there may be legitimate evidence that both sides of the argument here are equally valid. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like we are looking for rationale. Here's mine. The big missing piece here is the software. A system architecture is not just about the hardware. The hardware has to be designed in accordance with the software that it is going to run. Try making a video card without adhering to the DirectX API, you see what I mean. Likewise, even if you have a 64-bit CPU, your system isn't 64-bit unless your OS is also 64-bit. So, were any Genesis games 32-bit? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. If the Genesis never specified 32-bit functions, never provided developers with tools to compile 32-bit programs, and subsequently never had 32-bit games, it would be incorrect to call it a 32-bit system. The Genesis hardware may be capable of pounding a nail into a desk, but we don't also call it a hammer. What it's capable of doing is not the same as what it does. It's well and fine to say the CPU (or any other part) has 32-bit somethings, but the CPU is not the Genesis. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And that was my main point of reasoning in that discussion. While there's some disagreement about whether the 68000 is truly a 32-bit CPU (the article on that CPU states that it has 32-bit registers, but 16-bit internal structures, 32-bit addressing, and it sat on a 16-bit bus), the fact remains that the rest of the hardware in that system is 16-bit in nature, and so is the software. The CPU only did a fraction of the things it was capable of doing in that system. And I brought up the parallel of 32-bit vs. 64-bit systems and OSes in modern technology. In this case, I don't think I was terribly successful at swaying Theaveng's opinion, but in the process, examples were brought up about the PC Engine and the Atari Jaguar, both of which have had disputes over their claims to a certain bitness. (Jaguar was the more controversial, as I understand it, since it was billed as 64-bit but an examination of its hardware called that into legitimate question, and I think reliable sources commented on that.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get why people are trying to invent our own original criteria. We go by what the sources say, as always. In cases where there are different numbers for different aspects of the hardware, explain this in the text. But, categorize them the way the sources. Friday (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised how this discussion already went this long without the mention of the Atari Jaguar, which is apparently not 64-bit (I know, crossing into WP:NOTFORUM territory). MuZemike 07:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd already brought it up in Talk:Mega Drive, and I mentioned it above just last night. I think it's appropriate wiki-talk since it directly impacts the article and how we handle other similar articles. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that as we all know it as a 16-bit console, and all the sources and the manufacturer say it's 16-bit, so should we. The CPU having 32-bit elements or capabilities that are unused in the Mega Drive is all very well, but seems irrelevant to the console and should be covered on the CPU's own page. Miremare 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since both statements can be verified, it should be listed by what most relaible sources say, which in this case is 16-bit. Inside the article, you describe that it was "marketed" as 16-bit, but had some 32-bit functions. Saying its 32-bit when very little was not only gives undue weight to those sources, but also to the architecture inside it.じんない 06:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Has the potential to be a quite an intriguing article - more sources would be grand. My nintendo experience is limited to Gamecube and things subsequent.  :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What? No NES in there? I was hoping you might to the same with NES Zapper, one of the most iconic symbols of the 8-bit monster. There's also WP:NIN that might be able to help out. MuZemike 17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It has recently been brought to my attention that the series of articles and categories is in need of a serious look at. Categories as well because I was just being bold and emptied 2 categories of 3 entries each a category for FF1 video games and a category for FF2 video games, both of which also were covered in the parent category.

Right now there are still a lot of subcategories left in Category:Final Fantasy games. As for right now the number of divisions for a seperate category for each other main title game and Chocobo games. With the exception of Category:Chocobo games and Category:Final Fantasy VII I don't think any of them has enough to warrant a level of sub-categorization and FF7 does not need its own sub-categorization. It appears FF series has a case of overcategoization.

As for the articles themselves, I note first a number of inconistancies with other WP:VG practices. First Final Fantasy I and II (compilations). I do not believe we make seperate articles for compilations unless the content warrants it and the amount of real-world impact and changes could easily be covered under each article. Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS) could also be covered in the same way Dragon Quest IV covers its DS version, which if we are considering this a remake, then the latter is probably a more radical remake than the former. Then there is a Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) remake article which all the real-world information soruces seem to be from dubious, at best WP:SPSs with only 1 name I recognize on the list and even then it's a pretty common name (and the article doesn't give a profile so I can't verify its the person I'm thinking of), thus I think a lot of the content may even fail WP:V, let alone WP:N. A a few others as well in some of the subcategories, like Final Fantasy Anthology which offers absolutely no new gameplay but is just a compliation port.

Beyond that, several of the character and media pages fail WP:N. While and may also appear to favor more newer releases over older ones. Beyond Final Fantasy VII which had historic impact, most of the series, aside from the main protagonist, do not have enough to have stand-alone child articles.

It's my belief that the series of articles is in gross violation of WP:Content forking.じんない 05:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You do realize that we have a Square Enix wikiproject for a reason? It's generally considered common courtesy to wait longer than 37 minutes after announcing on the WP:SE talk page that you think that the project's pages should be reorganized before you start emptying out categories and taking the issue up to the parent wikiproject.

That said, lets look at what you're saying. There are 106 articles in the "Final Fantasy" category, so yeah, you may be right that we don't need to subcategorize as much. There used to be many more pages, so it may have made sense then, but we don't need a subcat for 5 articles. As for the so-called "non-notable" child articles... to be blunt, BS. Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), your example of a NN article, is a GA. As are well almost two dozen of the "non-notable" child articles. I'm especially peeved that you term the "media pages" as non-n, as the only articles that would count as that are the discography articles, and I've gotten almost all of those to GA myself. You also say that the character pages "appear to favor more newer releases over older ones". Well, duh- newer releases have more sources to support breaking off individual characters from the main character list.

I recommend that instead of rushing in to implement sweeping changes across a wide spectrum of articles, that you slow down and say, either here or at WP:SE, exactly what articles you think should be changed, deleted, merged, or whatever. --PresN 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since FF7 Fam's article is a pet article of mine and someone wishes to call it out (ironic given weren't you the one to support Chrono Compendium as a source Jinnai?): The article's primary source, Derrick Sobodash, is a published journalist with articles in even PiQ. Brandon Sheffield, the insertcredit editor cited, has his own list of credentials. Joel Johnson, the Boing Boing Gadgets fellow cited, is a writer for Wired News. GPara.com is a source readily cited by other news sources and even one google books result. Luke Plunkett is an established editor at Kotaku, Baidu has its own credentials...you know I'm rather tired of rattling off source at this point, especially given I've been playing through the thing to write out the plot section (which really is mostly FF7's original plot).

This was handled in very poor form Jinnai. Not only did you rush in but you opted not to inform any of the major editors working on the articles that you were rushing in like this. I'm particularly annoyed over this however after the tooth and nail AfD that went down and the fallout rubbish I had to endure from that just to be greeted with this months later. I am assuming good faith here, but I am annoyed at the same time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I can say for a fact that many of the game articles violate WP:Content Forking I can list every one and why. Mostly these have to do with ports, complication or not, and otherwise. As for the Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), it could possibly pass WP:V if someone had an actual cart to cite, but every last source there is either outright fails WP:RS or is a situational source as described in WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources and fails the test of notability of the author. As for the number - if the article cannot stand on its own with real-world notability, it should be merged. Even then it may still be better merged - see FE: WP:Content forking as systemic bias for breaking out newer content (i know there is a policy/guideline dealing with that...just forgot what one).

To be blunt any article that is a remake or port, even complications should be merged per WP:Content forking (if you want, I can list each and every last one). The Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) should be put up for an AfD per failing WP:N and WP:NOR using mostly blogs (most of whom are by non-proffessionals). Kiss Me Good-Bye should be merged into Discography of Final Fantasy XII on the basis of lack of notability seperate from the discography in general. Ivalice should be either seriously cleaned up or redirected per WP:WAF and WP:PLOT (for the latter it fails the second part of the statement as it is mostly just plot with token real-world coverage). As it is now, the importance of Ivalice appearing in multiple titles could be covered on a series main page. Also Rikku and Yume (Final Fantasy and Spira (Final Fantasy fail WP:N as well with just a few awards given for the former (not enough to justify her own page) and no RW info for the latter two. Minigames of Final Fantasy really doesn't need to be an article and could be handled on the main series page. World of Final Fantasy VIII although it does pass notability, does not really need to be seperate. It does fail WP:WAF though as it really talks only about the reception in the real world, no impact or anything beyond concept and creation. It's at best a borderline case. The only FF7 articles I really think needs to be merged is Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) for the same reason as Spira and Compilation of Final Fantasy VII since all that should be covered on the main FF series page. The rest are fine.じんない 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait how the hell does it fail WP:N? Because it doesn't have some magazine going "this is the best ever?" Those are established journalists commenting on the game, and none of them are related to the game or its development at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Kinda, yes. Nor does it have a scholarly review of it. It may be notable enough as a section within the main FF7 article as it meets WP:V and has 1 independent secondary source, but not enough for a stand alone article which requires multiple independent reliable secondary sources and the more obscure they are, the more likely they are to need more.じんない 08:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait WHAT? Are we looking at the same article? How are insertcredit, Kotaku and others being disregarded completely in this? While they each linked back to the Derrick Sobodash article they gave their own coverage and reception on it as well. Each of them is a third-party source and I've already been arguing the reliability of them above. Common sense needs to play a factor in here, you're not going to find a magazine or scholar writing about this unless some editor actively takes an interest in it. Even English computer game mods play hell getting that kind of coverage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not disregarding Kotaku or anything listed as a situational source, but the burden to prove they are notable is on the person adding them as a source because they are listed specifically as situational sources. Each one must show they are notable and reliable sources on their own. Just as in Wikipedia, notability is inherited with sources. If it were, I could post a link to an established reliable source and give my own opinion piece and be reliable by that standard.じんない 08:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that notability should be inherited. I'm saying the sources used are by reliable authors. Insertcredit's has it covered above. That's one. Boing Boing Gadgets's Joel Johnson is a writer for Wired News. That's two. Combine that with Derrick Sobodash's credentials and you have three reliable sources in the matter of ten seconds. Gameworld Network is also cited, and is under the ownership of UGO.com, which also owns 1UP.com. There's a fourth. Are your wording was at least two reliable sources was it not? I could dig deeper if you really want but I think I've covered the standard you wanted.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Two as a bare minimum...very bare, usually for something like a stub article to keep it from deletion and as most are SPS, more would probably be needed in this case. Gameworld Network is not necessarily considered reliable. Being owned by someone who produces reliable info does not make you reliable. If Gameworld Network is cleared as a reliable source on its own mertis then it's possibly enough for it's own article, although even then it may be better served as a section under the full article as being able to stand alone is not always the case. I can make cases for a number of articles that could probably meet WP:V and WP:N at the bare bones, but that doesn't mean it enhances anything to make them. I mean I look at the article and see rehash of core concepts like turn-based RPG system as a element being given its own subsection as if somehow that's special. Noting it has a turn-based system, yea. Describing it in the level of detail better that resembles what's covered in a more general article, no. Beyond that though as this is a remake, an unofficial one but still a remake, a lot of the gameplay section other than fact its 2D and the combat system is rehash of how the original game works.じんない 09:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Being owned by them does incline that they've put them to certain editoral standards. See the discussions on the WP:VG/S regarding CraveOnline properties. Can I toss in Joystiq's Kyle Orland is a published author as well?

Beyond that though you sound like you're trying to change the argument: it's similar to the base game so therefore not worth its own article? I could understand that but even the plot itself is condensed in some areas and completely diverges at one point: by such a standard almost any remake should be barred from having an article. The gameplay, development, plot and reception are different from the parent game, which by the way is a 67kb hulk by itself which would lead to the recommendation of splitting parts off anyway rather than merging into it. If you haven't noticed I haven't been arguing Yuna or Rikku because I do agree with you on those fronts so please don't take this as "oppose for the sake of it". But I don't see the purpose of merging or deleting this when it has the sources to stand on its own, moreso than similar articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article could possibly stand as a separate article and given that the mechanics and plot differ from the original I could agree if the information from all of the sources could be backed up as being reliable. It certainly has more differences to it than a standard remake I will admit. My issue is mostly with the sources (and also the way its written in some sections, but that's a separate issue). I just don't know how good of an article it is on its own. If that's the best it'll get as far as sourcing, even with cleanup, I'm not sure its GA worthy. And while I realize that the article isn't perfect given the talk with you outside here I feel it may be reaching the end of its potential.

That said, once again, if the sources can be shown to be reliable, other than a cleanup of the gameplay section I won't insist on any major changes to it, which includes merging. As for Gameworld Network generally that's a better argument when you have more solid sources to go with. With that being one of your most sold jounalistic peice, its not all that convincing.じんない 09:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If? They have been shown to be reliable.

But your remakes = merge argument is completely extreme. Sword of Mana, Day of Defeat: Source, Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, Metroid: Zero Mission, Super Mario 64 DS, etc. And you seem a bit much like a rabid inclusionist... I'd like to think that I've proven a lot of times that a split article can be a quality one. EarthBound 64 and Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man are two articles I've split that come to mind. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of them have been yes, but not all and arguably not enough to pass WP:N if this were up for an AfD. It may, which is why I say arguably.

As for remakes = merge is unless it is notably different beyond fluff, ie better graphics, cutscenes and audio should imo be merged as we many of articles have seen told to do just that. Only when either the signifigant gameplay and/or plot changes radically alter things should it be seperate. New dungeon does not constitute enhanced signifigant. And ports never should be. The differences can be wrapped up in their own subsections. Most of those you listed meet that critiea, with the exception Super Mario 64 DS being arguably an enhanced port, not a remake. As to the contriversy split, that's in line with other stuff that caused major newsworthy incidents so there is no problem with that.じんない 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

<tab reset> Hmm, I'm more of a mergist so the drive to merge the articles about ports makes sense, however, remakes can get their own article if there's enough information to merit one. Looking at Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS) it seems like a merge candidate, as it didn't recieve many changes besides improved graphics and some tweaks and extras. However, the article on Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) should not be merged - grouping an illegal "demake" with the original game might be confusing, misleading and unrelated. I don't see how the compilations are bad, since they're fully separate games which have nowhere to go except on the main series page (???).--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to table the discussion on the famicom game until I can get a clarification of what "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." means exactly in WP:SPS since that has only really SPS or questionable non-SPS ATM.じんない 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is really how much different a remake has to be to get its own article. It seems the general opinion is that if there are both significant graphical changes and plot or gameplay additions it should have its own article. Usually, either the graphics are changed, or the entire game is enhanced. However, things like improved translations and graphical upgrades without changes to the core gameplay or plot should be merged.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

By that standard there should be a Dragon Quest IV (DS Version) article, not subsection, but there's been no move to do that. Also by that standard Super Mario 64 DS should be merged as aside from gameplay, which is signifigantly different, its the same game. It has the same plot basically, nearly the same graphics, just higher polygon count and use of 2 screens, yet we have it. So obviously we need a better clarification of what consensus really is for splitting articles as it appears right now its "because I want to do it and can find sources (or not sometimes)" and that's it.じんない 21:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Because I want to do it and can find sources"—doesn't that sum up the ideal editing practice on Wikipedia in general? -- Sabre (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to say... --PresN 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR (sorry!), but I'm very much convinced this is a problem that needs attention. If someone can break it down into a more bite-sized, manageable task, I'd be happy to help out. Maybe start with a few merges.
• That said, some of the remakes may be sourceable and maintainable as fresh articles. But only if it makes sense to write a wholly new article. If we're better off adding one or two sections to an existing one, then we should do it. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think a clear set of when to spinoff a remake/port and when not to is needed here. Obviously exceptions may arise, but its clearly needed. Right now its anarchy driven, not consenus driven. IMO ports never should be, even if they are compliation ports. As for remakes, imo only if they signifigant changes to atleast to of the following: audio-visual (this counts as one as they go hand-in-hand with better tech), plot, gameplay or development issues. By signifigant I mean altering or adding elements that radically changes the way the game is percieved, except for the last one which should be more about issues arising due to the remake, not press releases about release dates and the like.じんない 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you need to think about what articles you're listing... so what, Super Mario 64 DS ONLY has its own reception, development, and gameplay? Wow, apparently, if every aspect of the entire game isn't completely different, it can't have its own article! Thanks.
    • And Final Fantasy IV. Really? The main article is 70kb long, there's no room for it. It's notable enough and the main article is big enough that it can and should exist on its own. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Article size is not am excuse to spinoff.
        • How about: a game should have its own article is two or more of the following are modified significantly: graphics&sound, plot, gameplay. Otherwise, it can have its own article if something notable happened during development (in the case of Earthbound 64, being cancelled and then restarted). RE: Retro Hippie, the FFIV article has a lot of restatements and can easily be trimmed down to a paragraph or two. Plus, article size is no longer an issue unless it's REALLY REALLY Long.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I think that's a good guideline, or at least a good starting point. Why are we covering a remake if the graphics, sound, plot, and gameplay are more or less unchanged? A significant change in gameplay, maybe. A graphical update, maybe. Both? Definitely. Randomran (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
            • My only issue with that is what is "significantly". What if there are significant amount of changes (numerous gameplay, audio, visual, and plot changes), but they were all minor. Coming up with our own definitions of what constitutes a remake, enhanced remake, port, re-release, etc. sounds like dangerous ground to me; much like some of the categories we come across. I think the compromise here is checking whether or not the sources exist for a balanced article (something that complies with WP:V). If there are a number of sources for development and reception, then I'd say that's enough for a separate article—reviews that only cover reception is not enough. If not, then the extra content should be a part of the original game's article as it will strengthen both topics. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC))
              • • It's possible that there will be sources for development and reception, even with a port. That still doesn't give it enough CONTENT for a full article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
                • I gave an idea what could be considered significant above. And its hard to say that reception probably the least important part and saying that should determine it is a content fork. If there is nothing noteworthy of difference beyond the reception that is a POV issue. That's what I'm saying is problem with most of these articles. They are forks for no major reason beyond POV issues that could be summed up on the main article page. Those than might have better graphics but nothing else and get reception is also forking because its saying that game is essentially not the same as the original. Somehow just updating eyecandy makes it a new game. To me thats forking.じんない 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• The truth is that "remakes" are a recurring challenge, and we could stand to write a guideline that will deal with the obvious cases, even if there's a "gray area" in the middle. Or at least give us a few factors to weigh. I'm flexible on the criteria, but we need something that will prevent us from being excessively redundant to the point that we have a content fork. Randomran (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'll admit there are always exception. My point is right now there is no guideline so its anarchy, not consensus, that rules what gets what article.じんない 00:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but the way this discussion is being handled is ridiculous. "Final Fantasy series cleanup". That's more than 100 articles. You should have started individual discussions on the articles' talk pages; there's no way we can properly discuss dozens of different cases and topics and have de facto two or more GA Reviews on this single section of talk page. Kariteh (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should include a "remakes" section which consists of no more than a bullet list of the changes. In the case of remakes of remakes, you should refer back to the earlier remake! :D Not all remakes are alike: massive remakes like the PS Final Fantasy Origins are in essence not remakes at all, but reinventions. However the GBA port and even the DS port of Final Fantasy IV would count as remakes only. (although I daresay the DS version should get its own subsection). Basically the scale and ambition of the remake should be taken into account: there is a clear difference between a "graphical update" and a retelling. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been digging around online for awhile and believe I have enough reception for a full article for the character, but what's lacking is development information, outside of tidbits for his appearance in Dissidia. Anyone know of any good sources to use while I prop the article up?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

...anyone at all?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would love to help on a Final Fantasy VI article, but I haven't been able to think of any good sources that you are looking for. I will certainly let you know if I find any. —Ost (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be easy. He's Kefka, right? He's won NUMEROUS awards, including Nintendo Power's Best Villain award, 1994. Just do a search for "Kefka villain" and you should find plenty.

You could also go into the matter of his sociopathic nature. I remember Andrew Vestal did an excellent piece about him a few years back, for his "history of Final Fantasy" feature. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so, here's the deal.

Lunar I is getting remade, again, this time for PSP. The current remakes for Lunar I are spread between 2 pages (Sega CD, GBA, and PSP on one page - PS1, Saturn, and PC on the other), with the only real dividing line being whether it has "Complete" in the name or not. I got both articles to GA over a year ago, but as time went by, I found that the small differences between each game don't necessarily warrant separate pages. In the grand scheme of things, it's all just Lunar I. At the same time, I have no problem keeping the articles separate, but they might be more useful as one singular resource instead of splitting all the info across two pages. Not to mention that, in their current state, Lunar Legend (the GBA version) has no development or reception info since it was hastily merged a while back, and is really more of a remake of Complete than the original Silver Star (of course, we could always un-merge it, but then we'd just have more articles for the same thing). What I propose is that, after trimming some development and story info, and possibly moving the music to a separate "discography" page, merge all six versions of the game into one cohesive article complete with appropriate development and reception info, with each re-direct leading to a well-defined portion of the gestault-article. If this is a good idea, the same process will be done to Lunar II and its remakes, as well as Walking School and its one remake, but I'd like some input either way.

Oh, and about Walking School - I think that it and its remake remake are actually the last articles to still use translated article names despite never being released in English (I created them in 2005 when English titles were still protocol). So that might have to get fixed, too. Nall (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

TBH I currently find the main article lacking in info on some of its ports as I see FE, nothing on the unique battle system for the GBA title. I think it may actually meet the proposed guidelines I mentioned above. I think however the GBA game might actually be better mentioned in SSSC as it seems more of a remake of the latter, than the original.じんない 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lunar Legend was actually merged into SS without discussion, and I only caught it a few weeks ago when I looked back over the older articles, but it would be much better placed in SSSC. Even still, what about this new game, Harmony of Silver Star? All we know is that it's a graphic remake, but it uses the movie files from SSSC, so should it go there or get its own article? It's really just a question of how many articles we should have for a string of remakes for the same game. In my opinion, it should go one of two ways: either merge everything into one article that would be massive but otherwise un-confusing to someone without intimate knowledge of the game's 17-year release history, or make separate articles that deal with largely the same subject but with different development and reception info and follow the three major game versions: Silver Star (SCD), Complete (PS1, SS, PC, GBA), and Harmony (PSP). Remakes are a sticky subject, so I wanted to do this diplomatically. If references are the only real issue, I have tons of them for just about every version, it's just a question of organization. Nall (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well certainly Silver Star Story (Complete is only a designation on the PSX game) is a different enough game (and has enough history behind it) from the original - The Silver Star - to warrent a seperate article from the original. I dunno much about the GBA one, though what little I tried of it it seemed to be a paired down version of SSS. Perhaps the BEST thing to do is to just leave the info at the series article until there's more info on exactly what it's going to be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's arguable if its based more on SSSC or SSS so in that case it might be best to mention it in the original with a section link in SSSC, though gameplay for battles needs to be in their as it is radically different. For the new title, from what I can it's not a remake of the original, but SSSC. In fact, the use of movies adds credit to this since things in the movie contradict the original. Right now it should be the opposte of Lunar Legend - linked to in SSS and a subsection in SSSC.じんない 06:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The GBA version uses still images from the movie files of the PS1 version, as well as music and characters that didn't exist in the SCD original, so I would argue that it's more of a remake of the remake, but, like you said, that would really be more of an opinion that outright fact. This is the major problem with the articles since you can't conclusively say which game is a remake of what since it's all just one big progression with some new ideas thrown in with each new version. I think I'll edit Lunar Legend into the SSSC article to see how it holds up, but if it ends up being too big (say, 45-50kb) I might have to think of another solution - In any case, the current Legend section in the SS article just isn't going to cut it - reception and development for that version need to be there in some capacity. I appreciate you guy's input, and feel free take command of the articles or post here if have some more ideas. Nall (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The philosophy of LL is an evolution of SSS's philosophy: although the story is essentially the same, the characters have remarkably different outlooks on their situation and each other. SSS was no less than an apologia for extremism; LL condemns it. Also, Althena's reasons for transmigrating are notably different: in SSS, she did it to share her blessings; in LL, she is but a participant in an emerging consensus, that the existence of a supreme being cannot be accepted or else people are without true personal liberty.

I think Sept. 11th may have lead to a re-evaluation of extremism in the interim, which may have lead to the change in story. But you'd have to ask the writer to know for sure. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If we don't have reliable sources we can't really use any of that. But given what you said about the reasoning and whatnot, it actually sunds more like SSSC where Althena gave up her divinity because saw humanity becoming to dependent upon her.じんない 18:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. :) Looking around at the few dozen D&D computer/video game articles we have, there are still quite a few that have no picture of the game box, and some that don't have an infobox either, although many are just fine. If you're the sort of person who likes to add such things to articles, here is a project for you. :)

Needs picture

• Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Cloudy Mountain
• Al-Qadim: The Genie's Curse
• Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance
• Blood & Magic
• Dark Sun Online: The Age of Heroes
• Dark Sun: Shattered Lands
• Dark Sun: Wake of the Ravager
• Death Knights of Krynn
• Dragons of Flame (video game)
• Fantasy Empires
• Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor
• Shadow Sorcerer
• Spelljammer: Pirates of Realmspace
• War of the Lance (computer game)
• Dark Sun Online: Crimson Sands

(has picture, but it's not the box cover)

• Champions of Krynn
• The Dark Queen of Krynn
• Darkness over Daggerford Digital distribution, so doesnt have a cover. Salavat (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Dungeon Hack
• Gateway to the Savage Frontier
• Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate Also digital distribution. Salavat (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Pool of Radiance
• Pools of Darkness
• Secret of the Silver Blades
• Treasures of the Savage Frontier

Needs infobox and picture

• The Forgotten Realms Archives
• Forgotten Realms: Unlimited Adventures
• Menzoberranzan (video game)
• Neverwinter Nights (AOL game)
• Neverwinter Nights: Pirates of the Sword Coast
• Order of the Griffon

BOZ (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, is Today's Featured Article. Keep on watch as usual. MuZemike 02:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Awhile back I cleaned out the Dead or Alive character articles and ran across this one, leaving it because it was GA. However looking back at the article I'm having some doubts. References in it are doubled in the same area, and the reception section is partially from one reviewer, but the other half is from Microsoft themselves which is an odd juxtaposition. I think it could be trimmed down and put into the character list because there just doesn't seem to be any meat.

Basically asking for opinions before I do anything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter to me. You might want to talk to User:Caribbean H.Q. as I recall he was the main editor for the article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Video games has been changed to - I believe - reflect changes in the {{WPBannerMeta}} department. This has led to all our categories being renamed "importance" rather than priority. For example, Category:Low-priority video game articles is now Category:Low-importance video game articles. Is this change to stay? In which case, we need to start moving the descriptions from each old category to the new one. I'm willing to do it but didn't want to if someone's going to change it back to priority again tomorrow. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I did not think about the categories. All of our assessment pages refer to importance. No one responded to my post on the talk page, so I assumed there were no problems. So should we change the assessment pages, or create the new categories? MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think "importance" is more transparent than "priority". The latter makes it sound like everything under WP:VG is some sort of massive back-log. Also, it seems like we're one of the few WikiProjects using priority. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 12:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Went through each category and corrected the individual articles that listed the the category as priority for sorting purposes (such as the vg console generations).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that explains why AnomieBOT failed to select a collaboration of the week. I was worried. Anomie⚔ 01:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I created the new category pages and deleted the old ones. –xeno ^talk 02:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been observing good articles in multiple projects and it seems like all projects have a different way of writing article(Example: When we write a lead, we split it in 3: intro, plot and reception but WP:NOVELS bunches all their info together in one paragraph). So users new to the project may not be sure how to write a good video game article. So maybe we should make a guide that can be accessed from the side bar that tells users how to write articles under WP:VG. What do you guys think?--(NGG) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As a newbie to WP:VG, I'd certainly agree with that idea. And as someone who likes unification and style guidelines, I'd also agree with that idea. There are two major issues though. Namely, who can write it and how will we decide on the correct style? Different people have different interpretations and I'm sure there will be several conflicting opinions that will need to be overcome. It's manageable but potentially a big project. Nonetheless, I'll support. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 13:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Guyinblack25 wrote one here that is pretty close to primetime for inclusion in the project. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I guess we should ask him first before we use it eh?--(NGG) 14:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to ask for that in this case, as it was written to be the project's writing guide; also, I didn't write all of it. If a few editors want to give it a final push to finish it up, I'd love to have my sandbox back. :-p

I think the part most in need of finishing is the biased point of view section. Other than that, it just needs some verification to make sure it is current with our present practices—this thing was started over a year ago. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Krator that the bias section isn't particularly needed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What about his other suggestion: "bias towards fan communities, mods, etc."? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

I just feel we should keep it as streamlined as possible. I'm not sure what Krator was referring to--bias in terms of trying to use them as sources and proofs of notability? That can be covered in the reliable source section. I'm just saying it's best to keep this from turning into a WP:MOS-type document and keep it grounded in the most pressing elements. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Make sense. I'll remove it. Any other suggestions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Any other input on the draft, or is it ready for the VG project's seal of approval? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I just noticed this was made. It seems like just game guide content at best. Thoughts? RobJ1981 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirected, might keep an eye on it to make sure it sticks just in case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Braid's 2nd FAC is barely getting input and getting close to being closed; a few more eyes to help provide feedback would be great. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like most of the FACs are like that. We really need more people to look at all of them and soon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a merge of the Dragon Ball Z Budokai articles here. Please participate in the discussion so that consensus on whether or not the merge should go through can be reached. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss is at FAC, but it hasn't had much traffic. Additional reviews would be appreciated, so the article's remaining problems can be dealt with quickly. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Still haven't had any more reviews. They would be greatly appreciated, as I would hate to see the article fail based on lack of feedback. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Cander0000 just moved F1 (Domark) to F1 (Video game). There was discussion on the game before about moving and the article title. I just wanted to ask the community if the title move is okay or needs changing. Regards Govvy (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I do believe it should be F1 (video game) (lower case) as convention. Other than that, yes the move is correct. If there were multiple video games called F1 and F1 (video game) was taken, it would be F1 (Domark video game). But they're aren't. So it's quite correct to move but the capitalisation is wrong. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple games, released different years. Not quite sure, had an age old discussion on here years ago about the problem. But it's part of a series of F1 games. Formula One (game) There should probably be a template between each of thoes pages. Govvy (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. There's a difference between "Formula One" and "F1" as far as MediaWiki is concerned. As this game is called "F1" (at least, originally) it should have priority to this spot above other formula one games, surely? Anyhow, Formula One (game) is a bit confusing. A link I followed there suggested it was a series of games but they're all made by different companies for different consoles. For that reason I wouldn't template.

Firstly, I think Formula One (game) should be Formula One (video game) for clarity. F1 (video game) should then be added to that list and a {{For}} added to the top of the article. Does that sound good to you? I think some jiggery-pokery is needed at the moment to get everything in its rightful place, but now seems a good enough time to do it. As someone involved in these articles, does this seem about right to you or am I missing something important? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 18:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Another point is, do you consider that page to be a list page or a disambiguation page? The list on that page does seem incomplete. I am sure there are much more F1 games than stated in the list. Govvy (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are others, you can always list them by year (such as, "F1 ([year] video game)", etc.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are really enough to do that, but it's certainly worth considering. Not my area of expertise really. And yes, I think a list page might be more appropriate. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Particularly, they're mostly projects. I have no idea if any one of these articles will turn out good enough! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in working on any of these articles, put your name next to it so I know who to talk to in relation to what

Squirtle

Charmander

Pichu (link)

Deoxys

Celebi

Jynx

Abra (link)

The Legend of Zelda theme

Dragon Quest theme

Little Mac

Thank you Mario, But our Princess is in another castle!

Used game industry

Digital distribution in video games

Controversies related to Mass Effect

Basically, if anyone's interested in any of these subjects, give me a ring-a-ding-ding. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you started anything for the articles on a subpage or something?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a couple of links to NARH's subpages. Salavat (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You should check out WP:WikiProject Pokémon for the Pokémon articles. There is already a discussion about Charmander. —Ost (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to split a Pokemon article, you'd better make sure it's GA quality or better, since they were combined for a reason. Thank you Mario, But our Princess is in another castle! sounds pretty interesting, for an article about a quote resembling All your base are belong to us. Braid (video game) used it cleverly, I think.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I can problem see the three starter pokemon possibly working as standalone articles if some development information is found. Jynx is possible too because it was the forefront for some controversy. Deoxys, Pichu, Celebi, Abra...I don't know, but I don't have high hopes for them as articles. In all honesty other than the two starters and maybe the MissingNo. glitch I don't think any more stand alone pokemon articles should be made and the ones we have cleaned up.

Thank you Mario, But our Princess is in another castle! might work, a recent tribute to it that comes to mind is in Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix with an achievement for reaching Akuma called "Sheng Long is in another Castle". Little Mac's a possibility too, GameDaily at the least tossed him a nod. But is there enough material for each to have their own articles?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just gotta wonder, what Dragon Quest Theme? There's no real theme music to the series outside the Overture, and I doubt that's particularly notable enough for its own article. Certainly not like the Zelda theme or the FF Prelude. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I have been working on Squirtle and Charmander and a few others. We are actualy trying out a new layout reviving the "Evolution line" idea as seen here and on my Charmander page. Good luck with the others though! --Blake (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The single songs don't seem like they should have their own articles, but it's possible to make something like Music of the Dragon Quest series, etc. Actually, I'd rather that Music of the Castlevania series would be made instead, since there's practically nothing about it on Wikipedia.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've already managed to make a decent Super Mario Bros. theme article, sooo... - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you are not recreating duplicate or near-duplicate articles. We already have articles for digital distribution, electronic software distribution, and content delivery network. Digital distribution/electronic software distribution seem to be covering the same subject, and should probably be merged. Your "digital distribution in video games" is just a special case of these. First improve the coverage of video game in those articles before splitting a new one (in which case I recommend digital distribution of video games as the target). Also, make sure your capitalization is correct; according to our article on Super Mario Bros. it should be: Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

On the DQ theme, since it was brought up, if Zelda is notable enough, that one is as DQ theme was the first for several things, including the first to be made into a live orchestral piece. I planned to do it, but I articles I'm working on that are hard to find sources for.じんない 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• nod nod* I think my first of these projects I'll do is the Zelda theme. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A question of terminology: what is a video game franchise? Is a two-game series a franchise? I'd think we'd all agree that Mega Man and Mario are franchises, but is Mario Sports a franchise? Is the MMX or MMZ series a franchise?

I ask because I saw {{Franchises by Capcom}}, which is a good illustration of the variety of things that get called franchises, from a series with two and a half games, none of which made a significant critical or artistic impact (Bionic Commando, much as I love it) to a series that would be used as an example in the lead of video game franchise if we had that article (Mega Man). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree mostly, except that I think Mario sports is vast enough to warrant it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd stick to what the sources say, basically. If most reliable sources classify it as a franchise, then it's ostensibly a franchise, especially if first-party sources say so. If not, then it's nothing but our synthesis. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with what, NARH? I didn't say it wasn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought you were calling for deletion of series articles that didn't have any place to be called series articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "media franchise" just a synonym for a set of intellectual property? One game could be a franchise in my opinion, if there's various characters, merchandise etc. bridies (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Franchise is a synonym for intellectual property, which is distinguished from an actual product or series of products incorporating the IP. An arbitrary grouping of games, such as Mario sports, is not really a franchise, as the sports part doesn't matter -- you need the rights to use the Mario IP regardless of what kind of game it is. (Bah, Bridies beat me to the edit.) Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always referred to a group of video game sequels as a series and something that is cross-media (video games, manga, TV series, merchandise, etc.) as a franchise. That's just my own personal view point/original research though. However, I've seen both terms applied almost interchangeably in video game magazines and websites. So I don't believe the gaming industry has really established any convention for us to follow.

I think Ham's explanation is would be pretty easy to apply to article leads. "The Mario series is a media franchise developed and owned by Nintendo." and "Mario sports games are a group of sports games in the Mario franchise." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I'd say that the "base" of any spin-offs, etc, is a franchise. For example, Mega Man is a franchise, Mario is a franchise, Mario Sports and Mega Man X are just spin-offs of that franchise.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[1]

• sigh* can somebody send this guy a message or something? He keeps removing the whole May 2009 section and replacing it with his advertizment for some website. I reverted once. I dont really know what to do now. --Blake (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has been blocked, though not by me. I was, I'm afraid, too late. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: not that I'm an admin or that it's any sort of competition. It's just that I reviewed his edits, realised he was a vandalism-only account with some sort of COI, went to report and found that he'd already been blocked. Just to clarify and that   Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The peer review for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

a whole raft of Star Trek games have shown up at AfD. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys - I'm filing this to get a more concrete consensus on the purpose of this template, as there appears to be ongoing issues as to people wanting to continuously turn it in to a giant list of consoles. Current consensus established via the talk page is that the template is for consoles that are notable for representing their generation. I.E. are notable for being the main competitors/representatives/icons of that generation - such as Wii/Xbox360/PS3 for the current generation. A listing of all consoles already exists via a link at the top of the template, which goes to List of video game consoles. Some people have wanted to add consoles to the list simply because they exist/existed, others because they may be notable for other reasons (such as one person wanting the Amiga CD-32 claiming its the "first" 32 bit console and should therefore be included). Perhaps the template needs a name change as well, which was suggested during one of the recent discussions as well. Input from the members of this project would be appreciated, as I'm getting tired of being one of several main enforcers of this consensus, and don't want to border on WP:ownership. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an edit war on the box art and whether branding is allowed on a box art image or whether it supposed to be edited out in order to be platform neutral. AFAIK, there's no standard established by the project. Thanks to anyone who can step in and solve this issue. - Liontamer (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a bi-product of the above. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Guidelines_-_Possible_conflict_with_WP:NOR - X201 (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved inFamous to Infamous (video game) but it retained the lower case "i". How it could be changed to a capital letter? --Mika1h (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to remove the Template:lowercase from the top of the article to get it to capitalize the title. The title in the rest of the article is still in camelCase and the box art appears that way, too. Was the page move necessary? —Ost (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  Done (previously), though I also wanted to check why the page was moved? If that's the title of the game, should it be as it was? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the move entirely was necessary. Its a logical extension of the WP:MOSTM provision for single-letter occurances such as iPod and eBay, when one bears in mind that the guidelines aren't prescriptive. If the whole thing was in lower-case, then "Infamous (video game)" would be the correct title, but I think that "inFamous" is acceptable in this instance. -- Sabre (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

According to those guidelines, it's a judgment call. However, I doubt that anyone will type in "inFamous" when they're searching for "Infamous", so keeping the original name seems OK to me.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just silly. This is a clear case of WP:MOSTM's "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'". And unlike "Ipod" and "Ebay", "Infamous" is an actual word, and doesn't need funky capitalizing to make it understandable. The article should use "Infamous" and not "inFamous" (or "inFAMOUS" as the box shows) throughout.--Remurmur (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Blue Dragon has become a featured article nomination. All comments are welcomed and wanted. So far only one person has left a review and did not support or oppose yet. Remember, your !vote always counts. Thanks,--(NGG) 13:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has got a few more reviews but there have been no support or opposes yet even after all fixes were done.--(NGG) 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm rewriting the Story section of the game but I have sold the game so I can't remember everything from the plot. So I'm requesting that someone who either has the game or remembers the the long and full plot please help me.--(NGG) 21:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the previous post got archived! Thanks especially to Salavat, Silentaria, and anyone else who helped out!

We still have a few that have no picture of the game box, and some that don't have an infobox either. If you're the sort of person who likes to add such things to articles, feel free to help finish this off. :)

• Dark Sun Online: Crimson Sands
• Menzoberranzan (video game)
• Neverwinter Nights (AOL game)

BOZ (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This one passed its recent FAC. :) Help me to remember in, say 5-6 months, to start promoting this one for TFA consideration; December 12, 2009 (in addition to being my birthday!) will be the tenth anniversary of its release! BOZ (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the notability of Block Dude. The only "reliable" links in the article are to the game itself. It has no major developer or publisher and is a "calculator game". Should a prod be added?--(NGG) 03:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a commercial game, so I'm sure there's info somewhere. It comes prepackaged with TI calculators.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. I could not find anything establishing notability of this game. If someone else does, let me know. Otherwise, slap on {{primarysources}} and {{notability}} templates on there; if no improvement after a while, then go the deletion route (preferably {{prod}} first). MuZemike 07:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one of those rare instances where you have a well known game that's tough to find sources to confirm notability for because it's so ubiquitous. You'd have just as hard of a time finding reviews for Minesweeper, Solitaire, or even Chip's Challenge. Nobody needs to review it, because there's no need to convince anyone to buy it. It simply comes with the system. I definitely think it should be kept.--Remurmur (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it's as well known as Minesweeper, since it's only a TI calculator game. It's probably non-notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This article's bothered me for some time, and I went ahead and downgraded it to C, and kinda lean towards thinking than an AfD may be a good idea. The main problem with the article is that, while large and reference heavy...it's all in-universe in terms of style. The development section doesn't even mention the development of the race for the game, just mentions design evolutions, and the reception that is given is bare bones and hardly specific to them. So what are the thoughts towards the article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure a lot of the references aren't reliable sources. It's written more like a game plot compendium than an encyclopedia article. If not deleted, it could be trimmed a lot and merged into a general list of Elder Scrolls races/characters. For example, all the gigantic quotes can be removed.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the category Category:Street Fighter techniques should be merged up one level, as there is only one article in the cat. I don't particularly think that other techniques would be notable enough to make articles for. Would the project think that this is a good idea before I put it up on CFD? —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved the article up a cat, set the old one for speedy delete.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Officially nominated here. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 15:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Given a few of the threads above, we probably should issue some guidance on when it is appropriate to create an article on a remake or port of a game to a difference system.

In general, these should not get their own article unless they are necessary. This is determined by a number of factors:

Size of the current article - A game with an existing 100kb article could likely have port information, if necessary, in a separate article. A 20kb article, on the other hand, has plenty of room to include the port. (Final Fantasy IV is too big to include information on Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS); Rez is short enough to include the XBLA version)

Time since original and/or Cross-generational ports. A port of a ten-year old game to a modern system, or from a, say, 4th gen to 7th gen system, is likely going to attract more attention due to development information and reception than a port to a console of the same or next generation, or 6 months to a year later. (eg: Klonoa (video game), a 2009 Wii game vs Klonoa: Door to Phantomile, a 1997 PS1 game, are appropriate; Okami for the PS2 in 2006 and the Wii 2008 versions are fundamentally close enough to not require a page)

Differences in port A straight-up port with no fundamental differences in plot or gameplay likely needs not much more that is already in the main game to require a separate article (it would be more a disservice and duplication of content to have to repeat these); a port where much is changed probably will have more to talk about those changes, particularly in terms of reception. (Dead Rising vs Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop where there major features lost between ports, as opposed to Resident Evil 4, where the Wii version, while adding Wiimote abilities, fundamentally is the same game)

But most importantly, Sourcing - A port that gets little coverage outside the usual reviews likely doesn't need a separate page; one that is discussed at great length, particularly in terms of development and legacy of the original title, will probably get an article due to the size issue. (Braid (video game)'s PC port made narly a blip after the 360 release, so reception was grouped together; the FFIV and FFIV(DS) version above is an example of a plethora of sources on the port beyond the original game's sourcing). --MASEM (t) 13:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

as for Size of the current article - that should not be an indiciator really, but maybe Size of the current section(s) might be more appropriate. Still that should be one of the least used ones, kinda like if you're in doubt, then go with that. Reason I say sections is I don't want to see it used as a justification for spinouts of stubs.

Time since original and/or Cross-generational ports This shouldn't matter as long as plot and gampley remain the same. This is because the comments made will almost universally be relevant to the oroginal. The few exceptions, like the load times on the PS1 Chrono Trigger remake can be noted in the same article. There is 0 justification here for making a new article if its just a port and no signifigant elements were added/changed.

Differences in port this is possibly the most likely to be the best, if the changes are signifigant. If they aren't they can probably be summed up in 1 section (with possiblity of s sub-section or 2).

Sourcing - ultimately each and every one must meet WP:V, WP:N and WP:NOR. In addition the removal must not make the original article fail any of those. Thus if talk about the remake gets all the coverage and you only have primary sources for the original, you shouldn't be spinning it out.

Defining Signifigant - because this came up as to "What is signifant?" I say this obviously needs some clarification. Yes, there will be some grey area, but it will also give a general idea where people can look when deciding. My proposal is:

Changes that are considered "signifigant" enough to warrant a remake being spun-out into its own seperate article require to at least 2/4: graphics & sound, gameplay, plot and/or development. Changes to the first three would have to radically alter the player's experience to the game while the latter would be signifigant issues, such as problems or radical innovations.

じんない 03:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with anything that adds editor opinion into the matter. The idea that editors decide how different a game is from the original is far far too subjective—I strongly dislike anything that adds an arbitrary post for such an article to reach before it can have an article. First and foremost should be sourcing, if its got the sources available to create decent and unique reception and development sections, the possibility should be open to having its own article. A lot of remakes won't meet this threshold alone, but those that do should not necessarily be penalised simply for similar game mechanics. -- Sabre (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Sabre summed it up well. If it has its own unique reception and development sections, then it can support a new article (although that's not to say that it always should). Otherwise, you can probably sum up the graphical and gameplay changes in one section. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sabre certainly expressed it better than I did in the above thread. I think the key word is "unique" development and reception. Like regular article creation, the sources need to be there to establish notability and verifiability. But if the two sections don't provide enough information outside the original's development and reception, then it would be content forking.

I'd say something like the development and reception sections in Super Mario 64 DS are a good threshold for a separate article (maybe I'm being biased though). The development of the game is very minimal but focuses more on its release. The reception is pretty different from the original game's and focuses on the changes/additions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

Echoing everyone above that it's about the sources. Myst was ported to every platform known to man, but the sources (and important legacy) rests solely in the PC sphere. It's got a shortlist of remakes and later ports, and that's about all she wrote on the matter. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For Mario DS, while a lot of the release date stuff is WP:V it doesn't really add to the article in a way that would make it unique to the original game. Release date information could be summed up in the main article. The reception and its separate gameplay, are what make it different enough to justify. And as for sources, I think everyone else is forgetting that these articles will sometimes be split if a remake has enough sources, but the original does not.

Guidelines are there for a reason. We have a guideline for how to write a VG article for a reason, because otherwise it's anarchy. Everyone assumes their's is the best way. Sources don't come into that picture, yet we have a gudieline. So stop applying double standards when there is clearly a need for it...at the very least for ports which constitutes violated an existing guideline: WP:Content forking as it is essentially the same game and giving reception on one is giving reception on them all.じんない 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you agree that distinct development and reception are enough to support a new article, though? Randomran (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the same criteria (unique dev/reception) is a good metric to use for splitting out expansion packs and downloadable content. Nifboy (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Randomran: Distinct development - ie beyond release date info and screenshot releases plus significant part of the reception comments on the new aspects, FE: comments on the DS and multiplayer controls for Super Mario 64 DS meet the latter, but the development doesn't really. They gameplay however is different enough to marginally warrant a seperate article. I'd have to say that that article is the bottom threshold. If it can't at least show that much difference, it shouldn't have an a seperate article for a remake; and ports never.

As for expansion packs, yes, I'd agree. Downloadable content though is a murky word. It can mean downloading of 500 doll items for equiping to your avatar. I do not believe many would support each of those 500 getting their own page for the same reason most weapons and items in-game don't get their own page, even if they have some reception.じんない 20:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, then... you think the principle is that a separate article should have (1) distinct reception, apart praise for the original release, and (2) distinct information on development *or* game design? Once we have an overall principle, it will be easier to deal with this material in general. Randomran (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Close. (3) both former points must be significant and splitting would not likely endanger the status of the current article (especially if its GA+ one).じんない 05:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to toss my hat into the ring - I think that if the gameplay is original enough from the source material (ie Final Fantasy Adventure to Sword of Mana), it has, by common sense, original development information and original reception, so Sword of Mana is definitively an example of a game that warrants an article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the three numbered points Jinnai and Randomran stated are a good guideline to follow. I also agree that SM64DS would be the bottom threshold, and think it's a good example for it.

Retro Hippie brings up a good point, one that Masem also touched on earlier: that a lengthy time between two very different versions inherently leads to unique developments and receptions.

While this is not a free pass for the article, I think such situations should call on us to do some digging for sources. Perhaps something along these lines can be mentioned in the new guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps we should make a port/remake task force? Devoted to the management of port/remake articles? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we're approaching an overall agreement. Does someone want to draft something for WP:VG/GL? Just a starting point, which we can discuss some more before we add it to our guideline page. Then we can work on applying it to specific cases. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Kinda related, but something I've been curious about on this subject: for remakes that warrant their own article, how much of the content do we treat from the parent game as unique to itself? This comes more apparent in cases of RPGs where a game can have a similar storyline and characters but divergent content: spelling out the content is a different tune than simply pointing out the differences. The problem is chunks of said content will probably end up copied from the parent game's article anyway. So what's the verdict on this?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If the storyline is the same, I don't see why you couldn't use <onlyinclude> for that section linking back to the main article if you were going to copy it verbatim anyway.じんない 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ports/Remakes

When multiple versions of a game have been made before spinning out the article into multiple articles for each version careful consideration should be made about whether it is appropriate. First and foremost are reliable secondary sources that establish notability of the different version. In addition, the splitting of the article must not endanger the notability and verifiability of the parent article; one should also take into consideration the status of feature and good articles and consider the impact a spinout would have on their status. However, that alone is not enough as spinning out in some cases can be considered content forking. For this, several criteria must also be met before splitting. An article must meet at least two of the following: (For terms of this guideline, significant is defined as altering the original enough that it becomes an entire new playing experience based upon the changes.)

• Significantly enhanced graphics and sound
• Significantly altered plotline
• Significantly altered gameplay

In addition, the real-world impact must be shown to have had unique real-world impact based upon the above criteria in either:

• Unique issues during development (beyond release dates and screenshot releases)
• Significant unique reception of the game
• Other significant verifiable impact, such as cultural impact, spinoff titles based directly on the remake, etc.

In addition, the element of time can be used as a deciding factor in close cases. For direct ports with little to no change a separate article should almost never be made as it would likely be considered content forking, even if it was remade as part of a compilation. じんない 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Other significant verifiable impact, such as cultural impact, spinoff titles based directly on the remake, etc."

This one bothers me...almost no remake is going to have the same degree of impact no matter how hyped as its original. I can't think of any remake really that has resulted in spinoffs based solely on on it and not the parent game, or if there are any it's probably a rather small number.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings on the substance, but I think we can off this guidance in much more concise terms. All in all, a good starting point. Let's see what other people say. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man: It could be argued Lunar Legends was a remake more of Lunar:SSSC than the original. The remake of FFIV could also be credited for spawning the sequal for it. That's just 2 off the top of my head.

Not so sure about the FF4 example...that seems more a case of it being a sequel to the original title than due to the remake. Such a requirement would be better suited if the remake specifically inspired the later games without speculation, which is too rare an occurrance Jinnai. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way...it wasn't even on the table until the remake sold so well. In the past the executives have commented that each game is basically self-contained story. This lasted until FFX.じんない 01:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Um...Jinnai, the sequel was announced before the DS remake was released...so it was on the table. >_<--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comapnies use preorder sales to judge the potential success or failure of a product as well. That it was announced before it was released therefore does not back up that claim.じんない 06:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This may not be possible to find out or even worth it, but do we have the dates when pre-orders started being taken and the announce date? Video games are rarely announced without some initial development started: basic concepts and sometimes early tech. If the dates are too close, then it's likely the two are unrelated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

I've only found 1 unreliable source that quotes Famitsu, but doesn't link to the article. However, this article specifically talks about the game being worked on after the DS remake was started. Since it was being discussed by a new team, then its not a sequal of the old, but a sequal of the remake and the sequal is directly related to the remake of FF4 for the DS. This coming straight from the horse's mouth. Whether preorder sales did influence, I can't confirm, but its verifable that the DS version of FF4 is the cause for the remake, not the GBA, PS1 or original.じんない 01:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Randomran: I did say it was a first attempt, not the final product. If you have specific points, like Kung Fu Man, feel free to address them.じんない 00:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good start. I see where Kung Fu man is coming from on the impact part. I suggest making that an optional criteria that can be used to supplement development or reception that is not significantly unique.

Also, I know loop holes have a bad name, but I really think guidelines need some wiggle room for notable exceptions; Pac-Man (Atari 2600) comes to mind. It's a port with reduced graphics and sound, identical (though choppy) gameplay, and the same thin plotline. Though the current article does not show it, the development is quite unique from the original, as was the reception and impact—many sources attribute the North American video game crash of 1983 in part to this port. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

Not sure what you mean by the first, and I did leave a little wiggle room by saying ports should "almost never". Any more and we leave ourselves open to violating content forking imo.じんない 01:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Having spent far too much time on WT:N than is healthy, I generally dislike "must have at least two" kinds of wording on general principle. Rather than spend three bullets saying "Gameplay, graphics, plot, pick two", how about something like "... considered content forking. Therefore, the description of the new game (Gameplay, plot, etc) should substantially differ from the article on the old game." Nifboy (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's really the problem though. Without spelling it out people will consider even ports at the same time as different games. Hell I've even had a few people claim translations of a game are different game.じんない 02:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think arbitrarily defined limits like "must have two of three significantly differ" are going to help. I think it's more obvious to say "if you're copy-pasting just about anything from the other article you're doing it wrong." Nifboy (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "pick two of three" comes off as a little arbitrary, and unnecessarily complicated. It would probably be enough to say:

• "If you can write a distinct non-stub section about the remake's reception, as well as a distinct non-stub section about its development or game design, then the remake qualify for an article independent of the original game."

... Game design encompasses graphics, sound, plot, and gameplay -- and really, you can fill that with anything, so long as it's a non-stub section. Randomran (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Too broad. It would allow you in development section to just talk about release dates, major publicity events, screenshot releases, etc. without really adding any unique development info of why the remake is well...unique enough to warrant its own article. Reception also about a games storyline, graphics or gameplay that can easily be related back to the original doesn't really add to the notability of a unqiue game.じんない 05:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I share Nifboy's and Randomran's concerns with the arbitrary nature of requiring two-of-three of a certain set of criteria, criteria which I think are inherently subjective and too open to editor debate in individual cases. Under who's view do we go with that a game has significantly altered gameplay? The idea that significant changes is "defined as altering the original enough that it becomes an entire new playing experience based upon the changes" is not objective. I understand where its coming from, the last thing we want is copy-and-paste sections from other articles when key elements haven't changed much. But as stated in the discussion above, I hold that the first, foremost and ultimately defining point still remains with the availability of sources dealing directly with the remake for crafting proper reception and development sections. -- Sabre (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start with a broad guideline and tighten it as we go. It seems anything too specific doesn't adequately cover some notable exceptions.

Something else in favor of a broad guideline. What I like about Randomrans above proposal is it can also be applied to newly announced sequels and spin-offs—something I think is a related problem. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, I tried to make it concise, and easy to interpret. I say we work with it and apply it, and see if we run into any problems. We can always tighten it as we go along. As for Jinnai's concern, we'd make it clear that by "development" we mean "game development", and not mere pre-release hype. Where should we put it? Randomran (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about reception being the kind of reception that is distinct to the version itself. FE: A review of the plot of Super Mario 64 is not that much different that Super Mario 64 DS. The level is enough that it could be summed up in 1-2 sentences for an article. A paragraph at most. Reception does comment on it, but not that much.

My other concern is that we stress that ports, not remakes, having their own seperate article, even if they a part of a compliation, is almost certain to violate WP:Content forking. Yes, there are notable exceptions, but that's the thing: their notable and exceptions.じんない 18:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can just strengthen the distinctness requirement in the statement I proposed above. Let me try one more time:

• If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.

It's never going to be air-tight. But I think that gets us most of the way there, and at least stops people from arguing for/against an independent article based on WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IHATEIT. Randomran (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Should also mention that splitting off will not endanger the original game's variability or, more likely, the notability of the original game. Also a mention of content forking guideline should be put in there. I think its been abused enough people need to know we have a guideline about content forking.じんない 22:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:Content Forking

If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article if splitting it does not endanger the notability of the parent article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.

Something like that I could accept.じんない 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that first sentence is too lengthy for its own good. Breaking it up should make it easier for people to get the separate ideas better.

See also: WP:Content Forking

If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article. However, having a separate should not endanger the notability of the parent article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Don't see any problems with that one.じんない 06:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The text has been largely static for about a week. Before anyone adds this, I'm asking for a last call for comments on the wording:

See also: WP:Content Forking

If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will quality for its own article. However, having a separate should not endanger the notability of the parent article. Otherwise, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the article about the original game.

じんない 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Adherence to availability of sources as defining factor? Check. Reliance on notability through separate development and reception from original product? Check. No arbitrary requirement posts regarding plot and gameplay? Check. Yup, looks good to me. -- Sabre (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor nit-picking, but nothing major:

See also: WP:Content Forking

If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. However, having a separate article should not endanger the notability of the parent article. If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:Content Forking

If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the remake's distinct reception, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or distinct game design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. However, having a separate article should not endanger the notability of the parent article. If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.

wiki-linked to remake. Other than that i think it's fine.じんない 04:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing else springs to mind, so it looks good to me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Does anyone know how to merge these two articles together? They seem to be two different articles and I don't know how to merge them correctly. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Um...why merge them together? They're related sure, but they're gameplay wise very different games with different reception, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But why not? They're baseicly the same game. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually they aren't. Home versions of Street Fighter: The Movie essentially played like Super Street Fighter II Turbo, with Sawada replacing T. Hawk. and the addition of "super specials". The arcade game is fundamentally different in many ways. Between the two titles only graphics and characters are similar.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I wanna hear a second opinion before I will forget about it. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they should stay separate, and the first one be moved to Street Fighter: The Movie (console game). Gameplay difference is more important than having the same characters.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be "that guy", but I'd say different gameplay is not enough reason to keep them separate. Do sources exist to demonstrate different reception and development? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

This sort of thing was brought up before, when two seperate games were released based on another source (was it Over the Hedge?). If they are seperate games, it doesn't really matter that they share names and characters, but it's a matter of HOW different they are, and if other sources treat them as different. Ask yourself -- if they had different names but were otherwise the same games, would we be having this conversation? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There Notes and References of both the same as one another. So that should be enough to merge the two. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because the references are the same doesn't mean the content is.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but the refs themselves don't really show enough to pass WP:N either.1 source isn't enough. At this point I'd question even that they both deserve a seperate article outside Capcom.陣内_Jinnai 04:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The two may have different gameplay, development, and reception, but the sources don't show that right now. I think it would make things more simple to merge the home version into the arcade version. If sources turn up that show otherwise, then we can always split them back to separate articles.

PS- Like the new sig Jinai. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

One of the reasons I contribute to the Wikipedia is that I believe it is a perfect medium for preserving history that would otherwise disappear when someone forgets to pay their ISP bill. One such field is retrocompuing, which I think the Wiki is absolutely perfect for. Instead of hundreds of fan sites, we can collect that information, clean it up, and present it well into the future.

One problem, however, is that the early days of home computing is actually very poorly preserved. There was a lengthy time between about 1975 and 1995, when the web became popular, where the only medium of "notability" was print magazines. Their coverage, especially of games, is extremely limited. So, for instance, someone recently put this game up for AfD on notability grounds, in spite of it being one of the most widely played games of the era (1975-1980).

Other wikiprojects face this problem as well, and have come up with their own NOT guidelines t reflect a paucity of information. Is there any interest in doing the same here?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree older games are more likely to have poor quality articles because of a lack of reliable sources. But what did you have in mind for "NOT guidelines"? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I think "NOT" might be meant as a shorthand form of "notability". Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaahhhh ssssoooo. Duh. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

One thing to consider is that most of these older games were not commercial endeavors but instead the preludes to open-source software and the like. And like today's Flash games, they were also a dime a dozen, those just not as many. Some took off, some failed. And most of this happened on server space by the computer elite at that time, so "reporting" of these games would be non-existent.

I don't think we need any special rules because any type of quantification of those is going to be subjective (for example, how do you justify the number of players for these games?) The sources are going to have to come from either articles that look back at gaming roots, at those games that managed to stay around (ala nethack and other moria-style games), or looking at the professionals that built those games and may have discussed them in the present time. In other words, the same standards we use for most other games. Yes, it's a shame there are not sources that easily cover these, but that happens with every subject on WP. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding to what Masem said, some older games are not possible with only web sources. For example, the arcade titles I've worked on would not have been possible to do without books I purchased. The sources are there for most older "big name" titles, they just aren't readily available or free. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Even modern games to get some up to FA level you need books. I think we could at least stress WP:BEFORE for older games though. That would not be setting up anything special for them.陣内_Jinnai 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me, I need to get working on putting CGW reviews into old articles again. Nifboy (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Random plug: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. JACOPLANE • 2009-05-27 22:06

Sooo, are there any conclusions here? Do we think it might be reasonable to ask for a lower threshold of notability for games in this era? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The threshold for an article is about two reviews (or equivalent literature); it's simply not possible to go any lower because we write articles from multiple sources, not just the game itself. And as Masem noted, just because it's old doesn't make it any more notable than Modern J. Random Flash Game. Nifboy (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think we could make WP:BEFORE heavily emphasized as being done before anyone nominates these articles, specifically to make certain print sources for those articles don't exist. We can't lower standards, but we can help enforce existing guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one of those areas where there's an unspoken rule not to nominate to AfD because most potential nominators have legitimate difficulty doing a due-diligence search for sources. I also find they're more likely to be kept as a result of a thorough search for sources (as in the Star Trek example) compared to modern no-name games. Nifboy (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So the reason I ask about this is that the classic Star Trek (text game) was AfD'd. I'm sure most of the readers here will be familiar with this game, which was widely played on early home computers. But the game came out of an era where there was very little reportage on the topic of games outside of the arcade setting. I appealed to common sense, but it appears no one cares about that any more. So what should we do in these cases? Allow deletion of perfectly valid, and IMHO important, content because that decade of books hasn't hit Google Books yet? That seems extreme. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If an old game hits WP:VG/D, it is far more likely to attract a swarm of editors digging through old magazines for sources, because of exactly this problem. It's important to maintain the content but also to maintain our principles: We need sources, full stop. Nifboy (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article was kept, good reliable sources were easily found. I still don't see the problem here. And this is coming from someone who works primarily on game articles whose main publication came before the Internet. That is, unless it is possible that we utilize too much FUTON bias, which is a common pitfall in determining notability for some of these articles. Fortunately, some people out there have done a great job in the preservation at least in the example of 1980s computer games; the Amiga Magazine Rack and the Your Sinclair archive both come to mind. MuZemike 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

At worst if you think a game is notable but no one is stepping up to add references, and/or those references are going to be non-trivial to locate, you can always request userification of the article to fix it up at your own pace; yes, it won't be in mainspace, but you also won't lose the existing content of it. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Does the just-announced "Metroid Prime Trilogy" warrant its own article? It's nothing more than the New Play Control! versions of Prime and Prime 2 packaged with Prime 3 on a single disc. I think it's destined to either remain a stub or violate WP:CFORK. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 19:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I say merge into List of Metroid media.--Remurmur (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been redirected to List of Metroid media, though not by me. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 20:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

'Sup.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It was recently turned back into an individual article by a user who disagreed with the merging. I personally don't believe that a separate article would be worth the time to keep up, especially considering sesuPRIME's concerns. Arrowned (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a major concern, since other editors are arguing using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that the page is notable. I don't think it is, since there is basically no "development info" because it doesn't consist of any new games. However, merging it into a list seems to be leaving a dearth of information. What's the notability status of other compilation articles? (see my talk page)--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This page shouldn't exist. It should be merged into the List of Metroid media and mentioned in Metroid Prime (series). --Torsodog^Talk 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's the first compilation title for the Metroid series and I'm not sure where exactly to place it in Metroid Prime (series).--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think where it is on List of Metroid media is fine. Since it doesn't really add anything to plot, development, and reception, I don't think it doesn't need to go to Metroid (series). We can always change it down the road. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm assuming you guys meant Metroid (series), as Metroid Prime (series) is merely a redirect. Anyway, I'm turning the Trilogy page back into a redirect to List of Metroid media#Metroid Prime Trilogy because Remurmur, Zxcvbnm, Arrowned, Torsodog, Artichoker, Guyinblack25, and myself all seem to agree the article isn't justifiable (at least right now). TJ Spyke and Chiefmartinez seem to be the only two who think it is justified, so I've invited them to join this discussion. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I might be more convinced to have it be a redirect if it got its own section in another articles (including a mini-infobox) rather than just the brief proposed mention the Metroid media article that includes almost no information. Even something like Super Mario Bros. 2#Super Mario Advance would be OK. I actually think re-makes and compilations are worth of articles (just like we do have articles on compilation CD's), but I realized long ago that there is too much stubbornness from some people to get things that makes sense done. TJ Spyke 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be nice and stubborn then and throw my support in with the "coverage in List of Metroid media is all that's necessary". Compilations of existing content don't really have any real unique development information or reception that differs from that of the original. My rule of thumb is that if it received some third-party such re-releases should be noted in the development section of the individual articles of the games in the compilation, and/or in a list of media. An exception to this would be something like The Orange Box, which has a decent amount of development information linked directly to The Orange Box itself and consists of 3/5s previously unreleased content, with a good number of publications reviewing that new content as "The Orange Box" rather than individually. This isn't new content, this is just a port of old games to a later platform, shoved in the same box for convenience, and should be treated as such. -- Sabre (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think that this deserves it's own article, but I do think this information should have slightly more coverage than just in List of Metroid media. The articles of the three games of the series should at least have a short mention about this compilation in their Legacy sections—similar to SMB3; an entire section like SMB2's remake would be overkill without substantial changes to discuss. Incidentally, can someone tell me why I bought Prime 3 when I could have just bought it in the Trilogy? —Ost (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

MP3 came out over 2 years ago, that's why. Besides the NPC versions of MP and MP2, there are also gonna be a rewards system that is tied to all 3 games (similar to how compilation games on the Xbox 360 have Achievements spread out among the different games). A small paragraph in the List of Metroid media article is appropriate. TJ Spyke 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're on this discussion, where would we put information about the compilation reception? There are already previews and, assumedly, there will eventually be reviews and sales figures. That all seems like too much info to go on the media list, but it's clearly still not enough for an individual article, and needs to be noted somewhere. Arrowned (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would keep reception content to a minimum, including brief statements about sales figures and comments directed at the differences. It could be included in the "notes" section of the media list.

Don't know of a list example, but in Super Mario Bros. 3#Legacy, the gameplay was essentially the same for the SMB3 ports and the reviews reflected that. Since there wasn't much reception to add, I left it out. (Though I could probably go back and add praises about the enhanced graphics.) In Robotron: 2084#Remakes and sequels, the reviews about the 3D remake focused on the negatives of switching to 3D. Since that was a major difference, I included it in a condensed portion of the paragraph. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

(outdent)The guideline page has been updated with the new remake guidelines. If it can meet those, then it would get its own page, if its a video game remake and not a video game port. If its a latter is almost certain in violation of WP:Content forking to have a separate article.陣内_Jinnai 20:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not even a port, it's a re-release of 3 games. Should the reception info be duplicated on the legacy pages of those games?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Though the Gamecube and Wii are very close under the hood, they are still different systems and some conversion is required, especially since the control scheme will be changed and graphics updated. I'd say that qualifies as a port. This just happens to be a compilation of two ports and a re-release. Regardless, I'd agree that mentioning some reception info would make sense. But mainly info about the new controls, graphical updates, or anything else new thrown in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Looking at this I'm wondering if we have a page for exploits in general, rather than specifically tied to only online gaming. As far as I can tell, the only other article that remotely covers this is Exploit (computer security) which is more about stuff like DNS. Should we even have an article on exploits? I don't think if we don't have one in general we shouldn't have one for online gaming as its a base topic.陣内_Jinnai 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be better redirecting or merging it somehow into software bug. The term "exploit" in itself is usually subjective to the person using it, making it more POV than anything else, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

POV...not really. If it advantages you and it isn't WAD, then its an exploit. However, redirect/merging with software bug is fine.陣内_Jinnai 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're going to find a lot of people who would disagree with you, especially in fighting game fans. Combos in the original SF2 were an exploit in that they weren't intended and are caused by a glitch. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Exploit basically means that someone is using a bug or glitch in the game to cheat by doing something unintended by the game's creators. For example, reloading a gun by switching it (animation glitch), bunny hopping (not really a glitch, but still unintended), or walking through walls (no collision map). I, too, think it should be merged with software bug. However, it could also be merged with cheating in video games since exploiting and cheating are one and the same.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You can cheat without exploiting, say using an external device or hacking. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Software bug is probably better. Cheating in video games should probably note that exploits are often used as ways of cheating.陣内_Jinnai 22:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, there is an image that is not displaying correctly for a particular editor. He believes this is justification for removing it from the article. See here: Talk:Blood Bowl (2009 video game)#Pic in development section. It has not been determined what the cause of the problem is, i.e. whether it's purely on the user's end or if there is a problem with the file itself. It displays fine on my computer, though, and I assume the uploader didn't have a problem with it either. Assuming it's not a problem with the file itself, or an issue of exceeding fair use, what would be the proper course of action for handling something like this? Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. The image works fine for me. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah also works fine for me. Salavat (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I uploaded the image the the editor removed it saying he kept seeing a "red cross". I was utterly confused but I let it go.--(NGG) 03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the same problem with the thumbnail that Darkson reported, so I suspect there may have been a problem with the image file (maybe a bad bit or something in upload?). I grabbed the full image, re-saved it with an image editor on my system, then re-uploaded it over your original. Thumbnail works for me now, so I asked Darkson to see if it works for him as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that this logo has been uploaded to Commons. Its stated to not reach the threshold of originality as it is "simple geometric shapes and text". I think that's highly debatable, for one the trademark Counter-Strike image of the man with the gun can hardly be described as a "simple geometric shape"; as far as I'm concerned, its a typical case of a non-free image being mistakenly uploaded as a free image. Any opinions? It's currently in use at Counter-Strike; use at Condition Zero and Counter-Strike: Source is redundant as the logo is already incorporated into the box arts. -- Sabre (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Logo definitely would not pass the ToO test due to the man's image, and thus redundant to other non-free covers there already. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just found this one too, same situation applies. -- Sabre (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Question. Did the pictures get deleted or is my computer messed up? GamerPro64 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They've been deleted. -- Sabre (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An IP has made the following edits: [2] and [3]. Can anyone verify if these claims are true? I am away from home and my PS3 and thus cannot see for myself if thse songs have been removed from the PSN and I cannot see any sources online noting as much. I emailed Konami, but have not yet received a response. IPs have in the past made claims on that page about DLC being discontinued only to have a couple weeks later new songs released and so I am wondering if this is the same or if the PSN has actually for the first time I can think of actually removed DLC songs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time, I believe late last year, Konami lost its license to a few songs, and they had to be discontinued. I haven't heard anything yet on anymore songs being discontinued, but I'm sure licensing would be the reason as to why. MuZemike 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I guess original research for now, can anyone verify at least that the IP's edits are correct. Again, I would check myself, but am away from my PS3 for a few days. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Hallo1198 has been contributing alot to this article, and they have horrible grammer and are probably adding alot of un-needed information. Who wants to go in and fix this? I'm not good with people. lol. See here for their contributions to the article. --Blake (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a couple of things out but they all seem to be good faith edits. To be honest, I think a fair chunk of this article needs a rewrite. Anyhow, I slapped on a user talk message about using Talk:Ice Climber like a forum, which will hopefully notify the editor that we have guidelines and to be careful. I don't want to bite them because I think they're editing with the best of intentions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that was a good template to add. Have you considered welcoming the user and pointing him to the manual of style? MuZemike 23:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Add the roster back to wrestling video gamesChelo61 (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chelo61. Edits by The Gamer of Games (talk · contribs) are very similar. MuZemike 01:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not my account. I am not the only one who wants the rosters back.Chelo61 (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The roster is an important part of wrestling video games.Chelo61 (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you think it's an important part? There are several editors that disagree, and saying what is important and what is not doesn't amount to a discussion. Some reasoning would get the ball rolling. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

You can't play a wrestling video game without a roster. It gives you information about which wrestlers are in the game.Chelo61 (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling games are just like any other yearly sports game with the changing rosters. We don't list every person in a MLB game, or a NFL game... wrestling isn't an exception. A reader doesn't need to know every character in a game to understand the important parts of the game itself. If a person wants to know everyone: they can easily find them on video game speciality websites. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and some specialty websites can be included in the "External links" section at the bottom of the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

This article needs someone to check for close paraphrasing, I tried to fix it once, but didn't help. I made some changes, trying to fix it, again, and wanted someone to look over them. Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 23:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

I've come across this term in lots of articles, and even on the animated WP:Video games ad. Strictly speaking, aren't computer games a type of video game, just likes console and arcade games?--CoolingGibbon (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, duh. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want to be technical, video games are computer games, just running on hardware dedicated strictly for them. I've never fully understood why we cover TRS-80 games like Android Nim though when we don't cover the TRS-80 itself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm from England, and I would much rather this WikiProject were called "WikiProject Computer games". Why? Because over here we tend to use "computer games" in steed of the American phrase "video games". Not just for things running on PCs but also for console games, because they themselves are technically "computers". Anyhow, I have a feeling Wikipedia somehow hit on the idea that computer/video games should be labelled "video games" (probably because of the dominance of the US in the video gaming industry). "Computer and video" games probably appear due to the editors who don't like to see that phrase disappear or don't recognise that it's the same thing in a different dialect. At least, that's how I see it. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily true that the British use "computer games". I myself also prefer the phrase "computer games", but its not generally reflected in the media; for instance, PC Gamer UK (the most high-profile and sold PC games magazine in the country) consistently uses the phrase "videogames" in its content. Needless to say from the magazine's title, its used in the context of PC games. A quick search of the BBC shows "video games" and "computer games" used interchangeably. -- Sabre (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The project used to be called "Computer and Video Games", so there's still residual running around from it. And yes, many people DO differentiate between the two, calling a console game a 'video game', though maybe not quite as much now as back when it was much more rare for a game to be released on both console and PC. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember. I still tend to add "cvgproj" as the template for articles when I make a new one. I guess one thing to wonder at this point though is should be go through articles like the above that haven't appeared on a video game console and remove them from the project? I've been meaning to bring that up for awhile but if we're not covering computers themselves, I'm not so sure we should cover the games either, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's remove also all arcade exclusive titles from the project, like After Burner Climax and Scud Race, those are not released on video game consoles... --Mika1h (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't be sarcastic, we're still covering arcade hardware and always have. It's just an oddity to cover the games but not the stuff running the games across the board.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not strange if the hardware the game was originally intended for was not originally intended to be a video game platform, or is not its primary focus. Hence why we cover video game consoles, but not computers, despite the fact that modern consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360 are technically computers, they aren't originally intended for that function.--十八 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine not to cover computers in general, because a properly weighted article on, say, personal computer, would not really cover video games that much, as Juhachi hinted. On the other hand, I think that we should cover PC-only games; they're not going to be that substantially different in nature from console video games. We'd cover Ultima III because a port was released on the NES, but not Ultima II? That sounds too artificial and non-intuitive to me. —TKD [talk][c] 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have been on Wikipedia for nearly a year, but I think that's stupid if we don't cover computer games. Why wouldn't we cover games like World of Warcraft or City of Heroes? That makes no sense. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me we're going to have another definition dispute over this.--十八 19:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

While we are having a dispute, should we cover articles that are not video games, like Guitar Queer O and Make love, not Warcraft? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes we should, and yes we do, such as the project's All your base are belong to us article which achieved Featured Article status. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, just to correct you right quick that article got delisted as a FA. It's currently Start-class.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for better times. =( Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In the past there was more of a distinction between console and computer games. That line has and continues to blur. While there are a few holdouts (most non-action RPGs are almost exclusive consoles and most RTS are almost exclusively computer), the definitions that could define a console game vs. a computer game are generally much blurrier. Xbox games are deisgned by MS to be played on both their Windows enviroment and their Xbox systems.

As for hardware argument, the only argument that could be made for covering PC hardware I don't think we cover now is for coverage of video cards as 3D cards are (almost) exclusively designed with one sole purpose in mind: gaming.陣内_Jinnai 22:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for accurate definitions, but I think we're splitting hairs here. It was exact definitions like this that led to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Arcade originally starting as a separate Wikiproject.

Regardless of our name, I'd say we're free to define our scope as we see fit. "Video games" is close enough in my mind. If someone wants to work on a tangential video game topic (like a TV episode, film, or computer), I don't see why we can't offer our reviewing services. I doubt anybody here is going to turn away someone who works on such articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

You misread what I said. I was agreeing with you. My only qualm is I think on computer end, video graphic cards have fallen through the cracks of something this project should cover.陣内_Jinnai 00:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive the confusion. I indented my comment only to differentiate it from yours. I'm in agree with you as well and did not mean to come across as a direct response to your comment. I meant it as a general response to the topic. Sorry for the misunderstanding. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

I think it's better for consistency/organization's sake (at the very least for the purposes of our project) to use only one term or the other—not both. I don't really care which. SharkD (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I gotta admit I don't see too much of an issue. I myself use the terms Computer Game and Video Game to mean entirely different things, but I don't think anyone would look at WPVG and get confused. Calling the group WikiProject Video and Computer Games is far less appealing, and won't achieve much extra. I don't think there's a chance that anyone sees this group and then leaves because they wanted to write about Diablo or Civ4. I think our definition is pretty clear - if it relates to electronic games run on machines, then we cover it. ~ Amory (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if we changed the name of the WikiProject, Dylanlip would have to go and change all the banners back again. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)